On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 10:25:51AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 10:01 AM Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:01, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > >  #include <kunit/test.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/bitops.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/overflow.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/printk.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/prandom.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > > -#include <linux/string.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/sprintf.h>
> > > >
> > > >  #define BUF_SIZE 1024
> > >
> > > It would make more sense to do this clean up in the 3rd patch
> > > where some code was replaced by the kunit macros.
> > >
> > > Also I am not sure about the choice. It might make sense to remove
> > > <include/printk.h> because the pr_*() calls were removed.
> > > But what about the others? Did anyone request the clean up, please?
> > >
> > > I do not want to open a bike shadding because different people
> > > have different opinion.
> > >
> > > I would personally prefer to keep the explicit includes when the
> > > related API is still used. It helps to optimize nested includes
> > > in the header files which helps to speedup build. AFAIK, there
> > > are people working in this optimization and they might need
> > > to revert this change.
> >
> > Yeah, I don't feel strongly. I'll just restore all the includes.
>
> It will be blind approach. Please, try to look at them closely and include 
> what
> you use (IWYU principle). I don't think anybody uses kernel.h here, for
> example.
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

I think I'm getting conflicting instructions here. IWYU is indeed what
I did: bitops, kernel, overflow, printk are all unused; string is used
only for sprintf, so I made that replacement.

However Petr said "Did anyone request the clean up, please?" which
implies to me an aversion to unwanted cleanup. So, which is it please?

Reply via email to